Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Lanell Long v. Aubrey Clark Long, Jr.

Date: 04-15-2015

Case Number: CJ-2013-2537

Judge: Thomas E. Prince

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: George Brown and Chuck Battles

Defendant's Attorney: Mike Brogan

Description:
Oklahoma City, OK - Lanell Long sued Aubrey Clark Long, Jr. on a tortious interference contract theory claiming:



I.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Oklahoma County, Oklaho am.

2. Defendant is an individual who resides in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

3. The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Oklahoma Count, Oklahoma.

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 hrough 3.

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because the facts giving i ise to this cause of action occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and the total amount in controv'rsy is in excess of $10,000.00.

5. Oklahoma County, Oklahoma is the proper venue for this action because it is the county where the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred.

III.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 5.

6. The parties were married on or about June 23, 1995. The parties remained married until on or about June 12, 2009 when the Court entered a Decree of Dissolutior of Marriage in Oklahoma Countu District Court Case No. FD-2007-5575.

7. While the parties were married, they acquired several properties thac they converted into rent-to-own properties. During the divorce litigation, Defendant submitted documents to the Court concerning the remaining balance of the properties. Plaintiff was awarded sev'ral rent-to-own properties in the divorce.

8. Thereafter, mortgagors of the rent-to-own properties awarded to Plaintiff began refusing to paypursuant to the rent-to-own agreements. Plaintiff filed foreclosure ac ions against the mortgagors because of their defaults.

9. Subsequent to the defaults, it was discovered that Defendant had informed the mortgagors that they had fulfilled their obligations of the rent-to-own agreements and that they were no longer required to pay. Defendant's representations to the mortgagors were untruthful and Defendant acted with intent to harm Plaintiff

10. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff lost income because of tie lost payments by the mortgagors and she also incurred legal fees in recovering the properties. Plaini if also endured significant emotional distress and still remains in fear that Defendant will attempi undermine her rent-to-own agreements with other mortgagors.

THEORIES OF RECOVERY

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Tortious Interference of Business Relationships)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 10.

11. Plaintiff had rent-to-own agreements with mortgagors. Defendant w is aware ofthese rent-to-own agreements.

12. Defendant interfered with the rent-to-own agreements by misleading Plaintiff's mortgagors to believe that they had fulfilled their obligations. Defendant's actions were intentional and his actions were neither justified, privileged, nor excusable. Furthermore, Defendant used improper means in interfering with the rent-to-own agreements.

13. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant's actions.

14. Defendant's actions were willful and deliberate and intended to inflict harm upn Plaintiff such that Defendant should be ordered to pay punitive damages to Plaint ff in an amount pursuant to Oklahoma law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffprays that this Court enter ajudgment against Defendant for actual damages in excess of$ 10,000.00; for punitive damages; for att)mey' s fees and costs; for pre and post-judgment interest; and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress/Outrage)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 14.

15, Defendant's actions in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

16. Defendant intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.



Docket

Date Code Description Count Party Amount

04-30-2013 TEXT



Civil relief more than $10,000 Initial Filing.

1

04-30-2013 INTERFERE



TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CONTRACT



04-30-2013 DMFE



DISPUTE MEDIATION FEE

$ 2.00

04-30-2013 PFE1



PETITION

$ 163.00

04-30-2013 PFE7



LAW LIBRARY FEE

$ 6.00

04-30-2013 OCISR



Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund

$ 25.00

04-30-2013 CCADMIN02



Court Clerk Administrative Fee on $2 Collections

$ 0.20

04-30-2013 OCJC



Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund

$ 2.00

04-30-2013 OCASA



Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates

$ 5.00

04-30-2013 CCADMIN04



Court Clerk Administrative Fee on Collections

$ 0.50

04-30-2013 LTF



Lengthy Trial Fund

$ 10.00

04-30-2013 SMF



Summons Fee (Clerks Fee)

$ 5.00

04-30-2013 EAA



ENTRY OF APPEARANCE BY ATTY GEORGE H. BROWN AND CHARLES T. BATTLE FOR PLAINTIFF LANELL LONG



Document Available (#1021323367)



04-30-2013 P



Petition



Document Available (#1021624976)



04-30-2013 TEXT



OCIS has automatically assigned Judge Prince, Thomas E to this case.



04-30-2013 ACCOUNT



Receipt # 2013-3116756 on 04/30/2013.

Payor:BROWN & GOULD PLLC Total Amount Paid: $218.70.

Line Items:

CJ-2013-2537: $168.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.

CJ-2013-2537: $6.00 on AC23 Law Library Fee.

CJ-2013-2537: $0.70 on AC31 Court Clerk Revolving Fund.

CJ-2013-2537: $5.00 on AC58 Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates.

CJ-2013-2537: $2.00 on AC59 Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund.

CJ-2013-2537: $2.00 on AC64 Dispute Mediation Fees.

CJ-2013-2537: $25.00 on AC79 OCIS Revolving Fund.

CJ-2013-2537: $10.00 on AC81 Lengthy Trial Fund.



10-09-2013 AMP



first Amended Petition



Document Available (#1023233002)



10-21-2013 SMF



ALIAS SUMMONS FEE

$ 5.00

10-21-2013 ACCOUNT



Receipt # 2013-3226992 on 10/21/2013.

Payor:BROWN & GOULD PLLC Total Amount Paid: $5.00.

Line Items:

CJ-2013-2537: $5.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.



12-20-2013 SMS



Summons Returned, Served: AUBREY CLARK LONG, JR. PERSONALLY ON 12-19-13



Document Available (#1023821308)



01-10-2014 A



ANSWER OF DEFENDANT AUBREY CLARK, LONG, JR



Document Available (#1023657729)



06-18-2014 MO



motion for leave to amend petition



Document Available (#1026431249)



06-27-2014 APLI



application to withdraw as counsel of record



Document Available (#1026463573)



07-11-2014 O



order granting application to withdraw as counsel of record



Document Available (#1026502343)



07-18-2014 CTFREE



PRINCE: PLTF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION, MOOT. PARTIES PRESENTED AGREED ORDER



07-23-2014 O



Order SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS MOTON FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION/PRINCE



Document Available (#1026680254)



07-28-2014 AMP



Second Amended Petition



Document Available (#1026722241)



08-07-2014 A



ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED PETITION



Document Available (#1026797397)



09-25-2014 MO



Motion to enter



Document Available (#1027255488)



10-31-2014 CTFREE



PRINCE: MTE CONT TO 11-7-14 10:00



11-07-2014 CTFREE



PRINCE: MTE HELD; PTC SET 4-15-15 @ 11:30 AM



11-07-2014 SO



SCHEDULING ORDER



Document Available (#1027703119)



02-13-2015 WL



DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST



Document Available (#1028610126)



04-06-2015 APLI



application to withdraw as attoarney for defendant aubrey clark ong, ljr.



Document Available (#1029086613)



04-15-2015 DISPCVDM



PRINCE: PTC STRICKEN, CASE SETTLED

1 Long, Aubrey Clark Jr

04-15-2015 DISPCVDMWP



DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE



Document Available (#1028695901)

1 Long, Aubrey Clark Jr
Outcome:
Settled and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Lanell Long v. Aubrey Clark Long, Jr.?

The outcome was: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Which court heard Lanell Long v. Aubrey Clark Long, Jr.?

This case was heard in District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, OK. The presiding judge was Thomas E. Prince.

Who were the attorneys in Lanell Long v. Aubrey Clark Long, Jr.?

Plaintiff's attorney: George Brown and Chuck Battles. Defendant's attorney: Mike Brogan.

When was Lanell Long v. Aubrey Clark Long, Jr. decided?

This case was decided on April 15, 2015.